1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the money ordered to be paid below shall be cancelled.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. With respect to A vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”), the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded each automobile insurance contract with respect to B vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. At around 12:20 on November 15, 2015, the Defendant’s vehicle changed from the first line to the second line of the second line of the front line of the building in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Yeongdeungpo-gu, to the second line, and turned down the mastir and fences in front of the left side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle driving along the second line.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

On November 24, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,192,00 of the insurance money under the name of the fronter and fence of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the repair cost for the father.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 6, or the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. In full view of the above facts and the purport of the entire argument, the accident in this case occurred by the principal negligence of the Defendant’s vehicle that did not take necessary measures, such as using direction direction, etc. in the alteration of the vehicle vehicle, but does not properly consider the traffic situation of the vehicle to enter the road. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was negligent in its efforts to prevent the accident, such as reducing the speed, even though it did not interfere with the view of the Plaintiff vehicle at the time, it was possible to confirm the movement of the vehicle at the time. In addition, the accident in this case contributed to the occurrence of the accident and the expansion of damages.

Therefore, it shall be taken into account, and the negligence of the plaintiff vehicle shall be 20%, and the negligence of the defendant vehicle shall be 80%.

B. As to the details of the damage of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident within the scope of compensation for damages, the Defendant’s vehicle’s shocked the fronter and fence of the left side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident, as seen earlier, on the other hand, on the other hand, the descriptions and images of the evidence Nos. 3, 5, and Nos. 4 and 5 are as follows.